Jump to content
Thunderheads

Un-flipping believable!

Recommended Posts

This thread just needs to be shut down at this point...

Why? It is located in a forum titled "Speak Out," with a sub-forum titled "Free For All." Is that how you handle disputes on the ball field? We're all grown here.We're all grown here.

Try again.

And it seems that whenever this happens on somebody ELSE'S thread, it get locked up before this point.

What? Try what again? We're not all grown here? Explain please.I'm fourteen, mkay? Decidedly not grown. Mature enough to understand and be tired of squabbling between those whom ARE grown, however.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ohhhhhh, that explains a great deal. You want to stifle the conversation when it gets a little rocky. Okay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Enough!!! This has gone on for long enough. Let's move on to the next topic please. 

Somebody die and make you supermoderator? If you don't like the conversation, feel free to stay out of the thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Enough!!! This has gone on for long enough. Let's move on to the next topic please.

Somebody die and make you supermoderator? If you don't like the conversation, feel free to stay out of the thread. That comment has a whole lot more meaning with this crowd than you think, buddy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread has turned into  :fuel: .  Its making me  :banghead: .   At this point all I am hearing is  :blah and it makes me say  :big_no. Thats just my  :2cents:

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure the thread will be locked soon enough, now it's just an opportunity to ask a poster to not be rude, as it might help in future threads. Matt, just seems unnecessary to be condescending when right away on post 5 one guy mentions effort and struggle:

My wife is the Baseball Booster president for my son's HS team and we are running in to this now.   We are aggressively fundraising to make improvements and are being instructed to ensure parity with Girls Softball every step of the way.  

 

Usually not a problem, but the Girls have no booster club and the girls parents  refuse to participate in the baseball fundraising.    It's pretty brutal.   

 

Everything already costs twice as much because it is being built on school grounds, and now we have to buy two of everything on top of that. 

 

and another also mentions selling magazines, cookie dough, etc, for a female sport, something I'm sure many many in here have done.  To talk down and suggest others don't know about fundraising for female sports or the imbalance when one side does it and the other won't, by choice sometimes, is silly.  Just figure you can focus on sharing your baseball knowledge without putting others down.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ohhhhhh, that explains a great deal. You want to stifle the conversation when it gets a little rocky. Okay.

Yes, me, the activist for almost everything under the sun who has gotten Saturday School for using my first amendment rights, wants to stifle this very well structured and civil, intelligent debate because I'm 14.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure the thread will be locked soon enough, now it's just an opportunity to ask a poster to not be rude, as it might help in future threads. Matt, just seems unnecessary to be condescending when right away on post 5 one guy mentions effort and struggle:

My wife is the Baseball Booster president for my son's HS team and we are running in to this now.   We are aggressively fundraising to make improvements and are being instructed to ensure parity with Girls Softball every step of the way.  

 

Usually not a problem, but the Girls have no booster club and the girls parents  refuse to participate in the baseball fundraising.    It's pretty brutal.   

 

Everything already costs twice as much because it is being built on school grounds, and now we have to buy two of everything on top of that. 

 

and another also mentions selling magazines, cookie dough, etc, for a female sport, something I'm sure many many in here have done.  To talk down and suggest others don't know about fundraising for female sports or the imbalance when one side does it and the other won't, by choice sometimes, is silly.  Just figure you can focus on sharing your baseball knowledge without putting others down.

 

What you quoted has nothing to do with what I was saying. The posts with which you have issues were specifically directed at the poster at hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's some food for thought, everyone can take it as they wish . . .

"Rashness belongs to youth, prudence to old age."

Marcus Tullius Cicero

:-)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SMH

 

Still trying to see any "prejudices" here. I am willing to bet that UMP45, like myself, loves and adores women, and doesn't find them inferior in the least.

 

You don't care if you sound condescending? That's awfully condescending of you.

There's a fine line between "loves and adores" and "respects."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason I would like someone to lock this thread is because this thread has gone from a civil debate and has turned into a series of cheap comments made by people on both sides of the argument.   This is not how we umpires should behave. We as umpires are supposed to remain civil and impartial toward others. You keep fighting about equality while you are constantly trying to one up each other with cheap shot after cheap shot. That does not sound like equality to me.        

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was planning to add something humrous here by starting another thread, then this came up. 

 

1. Hey Matt, please define equality for me. Once we know what that word means to you we can have a discussion. Right now your argument is simply that:

 

A. It is unfair that in your experience fund raising for girl's sports is harder than for boys sports, therefore

B. This fund raising project leads to unfairness and inequaility of outcome, therefore,

C. The Federal Government has a right to order this torn down, based on an anonomous complaint. Washington DC has the power to adjudicate these decisions at the local level? Title IX was never envisioned to do this.

 

2. Your comments here do not seem to agree with the facts I see in the report. The Feds (according to you) did not demand the seating had to come down, but its order to 'equalize' between the two teams is a defacto order to do it. The school district says it does not have the $$ to comply, so the Feds are enforcing a certain behavior by demanding something that a group or organization cannot do. Several different governmental bodies use that kind of order to enforce their brand of orthodoxy all the time. Where is fairness in this?

 

3. You are commiting a logical fallacy here as well, if there is real equality, then let us compare the girl's SB and Girl's Bk teams, or even the SB team and the WR team, a sport open to both sexes. The SB team has a specialized field, expensive equipment, multiple coaches, etc, and rasing funds is hard. How about the WR team? Raising funds to have any kind of competive wrestling team is massively difficult, should the WR team go to the Feds and complain that because the SB program has this and that advantage over them the SB team should be forced to have the same level of support with the WR team? 

 

4. Obviously the BB team has support, at least in the past, from a booster club, and much more than the SB team I guess. Why is that? Is it because the coaching staff works their tails off to do the work necessary to have an active booster club? Is it because the Baseball team has many more kids participating in it, where you have a Varsity Team, and JV team, maybe a Freshman or MS teams too? Has the BB team been a successful program in the past or now, meaning there is more interest by their success?

 

Your argument ignores all these questions. Maybe there is no support for SB because there is nothing there to support? If you have 11 SB players in the program, and no record of success, and no interest by the coaching staff in a booster organization, there is no chance to make enough to make these improvements. Your only solution is to demand  that nobody gets anything, therefore everything is supposedly equal. 

 

5. Matt, what kind of lesson is this telling the students in the school? This whole situation sends two messages; A. Only a bureaucrat can decide what is good and apporpriate behavior by individuals working together. B. If you think something isn;t fair, instead of doing something about it, you simply to complain to government who will fix things all up for you. Individuals came together to do something for a common goal, a project for a school team. You just sent a message that those efforts were not only meaningless they were wrong because they gave an advantage to one group over another.    

 

6.  Finally, and most upsetting to me, your argument is simply that the baseball team and booster organization is not entitled to make decisions on how to spent their time, money, and effort to support a co-curricular function because it is in your opinion 'unfair', whatever that word means. You are making the argument that the Federal govenment, in the interest of fairness, has the right and duty to tell individuals (and other government organizations who have more information than they do about the local suitation) how to spend their time and money, when they receieve no benefit for it. The men and women who built those fields gain nothing from it other than the satisfaction of doing a community service for the baseball team.       

 

You are now saying that another group has the right to destroy that work because the boosters didn't do work for some other group, or gave equivalent support to a different organization seen as equal in someone else's eyes.

 

The better solution is for the FEDs to have just forced the same boosters who built the baseball field stands to stop their current life and build the exact same type of seating for the SB team, while the complainers and do nothing parents sit around and watch them. What kind of fairness and equality is that?

 

I film for a local HS FB team. Does that mean I have to now film for a local girl's soccer team who cannot get anyone to do that for them? Or shuold I be forerced to quit because a school in an urban district X number of miles away cannot find anyone to do their games?  

 

This kind of thinking goes on too much in our country, and as Hayak's great work says it is "The Road to Serfdom".

 

I hope we can continue the discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

None of what you said is accurate, with the exception of the claim that I'm ignoring certain arguments. I will go more into detail when I have time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice reply Matt. I look forward to you having some time to post, but if you are just dismissing my arguments out of hand I'm not really sure you are interesed in a discussion.

 

Instead, why not wait and explain yourself fully before attack my arguments?.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get the Denzel Washington reference. :stir

maybe because that's Will Smith ...haha

Sent using Tapatalk

Yes, yes, that's the reason for the pot.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was planning to add something humrous here by starting another thread, then this came up. 

 

1. Hey Matt, please define equality for me. Once we know what that word means to you we can have a discussion. Right now your argument is simply that:

 

A. It is unfair that in your experience fund raising for girl's sports is harder than for boys sports, therefore

Not just my personal experience, but that also as a researcher.

B. This fund raising project leads to unfairness and inequaility of outcome, therefore,

No, I'm talking equality of opportunity. The baseball players have an opportunity for an improved activity setting that softball players don't. The difference between the opportunity to play each sport is due to sex.

C. The Federal Government has a right to order this torn down, based on an anonomous complaint. Washington DC has the power to adjudicate these decisions at the local level? Title IX was never envisioned to do this.

That didn't happen...read on.

2. Your comments here do not seem to agree with the facts I see in the report. The Feds (according to you) did not demand the seating had to come down, but its order to 'equalize' between the two teams is a defacto order to do it. The school district says it does not have the $$ to comply, so the Feds are enforcing a certain behavior by demanding something that a group or organization cannot do. Several different governmental bodies use that kind of order to enforce their brand of orthodoxy all the time. Where is fairness in this?

The government does not tell institutions how to become compliant. There are three means by which an institution can become compliant and maintain compliance; only one has to be met. Thus, when an institution becomes non-compliant, there are no fewer than four remedies at its disposal. The institution decides how it is going to proceed, develops a plan for compliance, and an explanation as to why the remedy achieves compliance.

This is totally on the school.

 

3. You are commiting a logical fallacy here as well, if there is real equality, then let us compare the girl's SB and Girl's Bk teams, or even the SB team and the WR team, a sport open to both sexes. The SB team has a specialized field, expensive equipment, multiple coaches, etc, and rasing funds is hard. How about the WR team? Raising funds to have any kind of competive wrestling team is massively difficult, should the WR team go to the Feds and complain that because the SB program has this and that advantage over them the SB team should be forced to have the same level of support with the WR team?

The fallacy is yours, using a false premiss to create a false analogy. I think it's unintentional due to a misunderstanding of how Title IX compliance works. To alleviate that, I would suggest learning what "substantial compliance" means. In short, without knowing how the school was compliant initially, I cannot say if SB would ever be considered a tool to be in substantial compliance with WR. It most likely would not be, but it could under certain circumstances--which then would render the concept you raise moot, because it wouldn't be about facilities at that point.

 

4. Obviously the BB team has support, at least in the past, from a booster club, and much more than the SB team I guess. Why is that? Is it because the coaching staff works their tails off to do the work necessary to have an active booster club? Is it because the Baseball team has many more kids participating in it, where you have a Varsity Team, and JV team, maybe a Freshman or MS teams too? Has the BB team been a successful program in the past or now, meaning there is more interest by their success?

All conjecture without fact, and irrelevant...again, read on.

 

Your argument ignores all these questions. Maybe there is no support for SB because there is nothing there to support? If you have 11 SB players in the program, and no record of success, and no interest by the coaching staff in a booster organization, there is no chance to make enough to make these improvements.

I ignore those questions because they are not relevant. This is an educational environment, not a business or sport for customers. Every student in that school deserves the opportunity as a similarly-situated student of another sex or gender.

If someone came into the school and handed out tickets to MLB games just to boys, because "boys have more interest," would you expect the school to allow, or in this case, condone it?

Your only solution is to demand  that nobody gets anything, therefore everything is supposedly equal.

Where did I say that? 

 

5. Matt, what kind of lesson is this telling the students in the school? This whole situation sends two messages; A. Only a bureaucrat can decide what is good and apporpriate behavior by individuals working together. B. If you think something isn;t fair, instead of doing something about it, you simply to complain to government who will fix things all up for you. Individuals came together to do something for a common goal, a project for a school team. You just sent a message that those efforts were not only meaningless they were wrong because they gave an advantage to one group over another.

As I have said, why aren't you blaming the responsible party, the school, for allowing non-compliance in the first place?  

 

6.  Finally, and most upsetting to me, your argument is simply that the baseball team and booster organization is not entitled to make decisions on how to spent their time, money, and effort to support a co-curricular function because it is in your opinion 'unfair', whatever that word means. You are making the argument that the Federal govenment, in the interest of fairness, has the right and duty to tell individuals (and other government organizations who have more information than they do about the local suitation) how to spend their time and money, when they receieve no benefit for it. The men and women who built those fields gain nothing from it other than the satisfaction of doing a community service for the baseball team.       

 

You are now saying that another group has the right to destroy that work because the boosters didn't do work for some other group, or gave equivalent support to a different organization seen as equal in someone else's eyes.

Where did I say that?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The better solution is for the FEDs to have just forced the same boosters who built the baseball field stands to stop their current life and build the exact same type of seating for the SB team, while the complainers and do nothing parents sit around and watch them. What kind of fairness and equality is that?

Didn't happen.

I'll add something from my experience--in my area, there was one sport that monopolized the most productive means of fundraising, and other sports were never given the opportunity to do those means. The salient point is that just because a sport didn't raise the money, it wasn't necessarily their fault--they may have never had the chance in the first place.

 

I film for a local HS FB team. Does that mean I have to now film for a local girl's soccer team who cannot get anyone to do that for them? Or shuold I be forerced to quit because a school in an urban district X number of miles away cannot find anyone to do their games?

Strawman.

 

I hope we can continue the discussion.

We won't if you keep ignoring what I say and substituting your own words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Matt,

 

I appreciate you taking the time to reply. It will be somewhat hard to reply in one post, so I will take a couple if that is okay with you.

 

 

Posted Today, 02:59 PM

jkumpire, on 04 Apr 2014 - 12:27 PM, said:snapback.png

I was planning to add something humrous here by starting another thread, then this came up. 
 
1. Hey Matt, please define equality for me. Once we know what that word means to you we can have a discussion. Right now your argument is simply that:
 
A. It is unfair that in your experience fund raising for girl's sports is harder than for boys sports, therefore

Not just my personal experience, but that also as a researcher.

 

I'm sorry, but do you have any way we can see some of your research on this subject? If you have objective data that proves beyond a doubt that this is true acrss the country, I'd apprecaite a link. In my reading and years of being involved in HS sports, I've seen plenty of well-funded boys and girls teams by boosters and schools, but in your second post you simply state that:  Maybe you should also learn about the issues in trying to raise revenue for female sports.  Then later you write: Where do you think the revenue comes from? I also would challenge you to try to fundraise for a girls' sport and see how much success you have.

 

This sounds a lot like you are universalizing your expereince to be normative for every place in the country, including here. Still, you have not defined what equality is, but more on that below. 

 

**********

 

jkumpire, on 04 Apr 2014 - 12:27 PM, said:snapback.png

B. This fund raising project leads to unfairness and inequaility of outcome, therefore,

Matt: "No, I'm talking equality of opportunity. The baseball players have an opportunity for an improved activity setting that softball players don't. The difference between the opportunity to play each sport is due to sex."

 

Again, I completely disagree, this is not equality of opportunity,  no girl is harmed by different types of bleachers at diferent fields. No girl is not being allowed to play SB becasue the stands are different a the SB field as oppsed to the baseball field No girl is losing the chance to play softball because people years ago volunteered their labor to build stands for a baseball team. Unless you can prove that volunteers making bleachers for a different field directly led to less opportunity for girls to play softball, you are wrong. This statement shows what you are wanting is equality of outcomes.  Are you seriously trying to say that people will not watch SB or let their kids play, or not donate to the SB team because the stands are different? 

 

Further, can we also agree that a baseball field might have different seating requirements because one field is much larger than the other?   As the interviewed man in the video stated the stands were built so people could see the whole field, a problem the SB field likely does not have.

 

I have more to say about this, but I need to move on.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Matt, now your argument gets really dicey here.

 

 

jkumpire, on 04 Apr 2014 - 12:27 PM, said:snapback.png

C. The Federal Government has a right to order this torn down, based on an anonomous complaint. Washington DC has the power to adjudicate these decisions at the local level? Title IX was never envisioned to do this.

That didn't happen...read on.

 

Oh yes it did. From the Yahoo article: 

 

Now, the school must tear it all down. The U.S. Education Department's Office for Civil Rights opened an investigation following an anonymous complaint. Ultimately, officials demanded that the seating and scoreboard be torn down because the upgrades are superior to Plymouth's girls' softball facilities (pictured). The boys' seating is also not handicap accessible, which is a separate violation of government regulations.... Plymouth High School superintendent Michael Meissen said the seats and scoreboard will be preserved until the district decides how to remedy the situation. Meissen told WJBK-TV that the school wants to follow the government's regulations and be "fair to everyone," but it does not have the funds to upgrade the girls' softball bleachers. The school reportedly plans to install a new scoreboard on the softball field, though.

 

There are obvious Title IX implications to this story, as federally funded schools are required to provide equal opportunity for both boys' and girls' sports. Forty-two years after the law was passed, schools and colleges across the country are still struggling to comply with the rules in the face of shrinking budgets. Plymouth joins a long list of schools that may be in violation of Title IX, whether they realize it or not.

 

This is classic Federal Bureaucratic oversight, tell them to get into compliance or else. What are their alternatives? The school district has no cash to build for the SB team, and nobody who supports the SB team is working to get the money, or the school superintendent would tell it to everyone. We can also assume no businesses in town have been asked to help out either. 

 

So they only have one way to comply, spend money to tear down the baseball stands and take down the scoreboard, and store them in the hope one day something can be built for the SB team, and the Baseball team. Meanwhile the stored scoreboard, seats and building materials start to deteriorate or have to be refurbished before they can be replaced. If I was a betting man, I would bet at least one game check those baseball bleachers are never rebuilt and that scoreboard never gets put back up. In time the athletic department or the school board will sell the items. 

 

 

jkumpire, on 04 Apr 2014 - 12:27 PM, said:snapback.png

2. Your comments here do not seem to agree with the facts I see in the report. The Feds (according to you) did not demand the seating had to come down, but its order to 'equalize' between the two teams is a defacto order to do it. The school district says it does not have the $$ to comply, so the Feds are enforcing a certain behavior by demanding something that a group or organization cannot do. Several different governmental bodies use that kind of order to enforce their brand of orthodoxy all the time. Where is fairness in this?

The government does not tell institutions how to become compliant. There are three means by which an institution can become compliant and maintain compliance; only one has to be met. Thus, when an institution becomes non-compliant, there are no fewer than four remedies at its disposal. The institution decides how it is going to proceed, develops a plan for compliance, and an explanation as to why the remedy achieves compliance.

This is totally on the school.

 

No it isn't totally on the school. The government could easily grant a wavier so the stands could stay in place, they could help the school district with an ADA grant or make other money avaliable to help bring them into compliance. Further, read the article words again: Ultimately, officials demanded that the seating and scoreboard be torn down because the upgrades are superior to Plymouth's girls' softball facilities. Are you trying to tell us the school board or superintendent demanded that the school district tear the stands down?

 

Even better, they could go back to the original application of Title IX when the law was passed in 1979, when the measure of complaince was in several different ways, and equality of outcome was not the standard that had to be met in all cases, a ruling that was handed down in the Clinton Administration in 1998. I would be very interested in hearing what you believe the four four remedies are for compliance; I believe that all of them are way too expensive for the district to do, so they took the one that costs them the least amount of time, money, and possible litigation, teraring down the Baseball bleachers. 

 

It is also interesting to me that you are supporting the whole idea that only the Federal Government has the ability to determine what is complinace or not (i.e. what is right/moral/ethical or not), ignoring the facts on the ground as they are. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, but do you have any way we can see some of your research on this subject? If you have objective data that proves beyond a doubt that this is true acrss the country, I'd apprecaite a link. In my reading and years of being involved in HS sports, I've seen plenty of well-funded boys and girls teams by boosters and schools, but in your second post you simply state that:  Maybe you should also learn about the issues in trying to raise revenue for female sports.  Then later you write: Where do you think the revenue comes from? I also would challenge you to try to fundraise for a girls' sport and see how much success you have.

I will look to see if there is a non-subscription link to that and similar research.

 

This sounds a lot like you are universalizing your expereince to be normative for every place in the country, including here. Still, you have not defined what equality is, but more on that below.

My experience is mixed, so what I said definitely is not universalizing. Once I was in an opportunity to make changes in my community in this area, people soon realized that having separate fundraising programs for every sport was a stupid concept. The issues I saw from a personal standpoint were before I had that opportunity. Neither baseball nor softball were that aforementioned golden sport, but it was much easier to develop a successful fundraising program for baseball than softball. Once all the non-golden sports came together as one entity, things took off.

One also should remember that in athletics and Title IX, baseball and softball are almost always going to be the sports where this issue occurs...soccer, basketball, hockey, swimming, etc. all have the ability to share substantially across both sides. You can't really successfully play softball on a baseball field or vice versa.

In short, once people stopped compartmentalizing, it got better. That compartmentalization between baseball and softball is defined by sex.

 

Again, I completely disagree, this is not equality of opportunity,  no girl is harmed by different types of bleachers at diferent fields. No girl is not being allowed to play SB becasue the stands are different a the SB field as oppsed to the baseball field No girl is losing the chance to play softball because people years ago volunteered their labor to build stands for a baseball team. Unless you can prove that volunteers making bleachers for a different field directly led to less opportunity for girls to play softball, you are wrong. This statement shows what you are wanting is equality of outcomes.  Are you seriously trying to say that people will not watch SB or let their kids play, or not donate to the SB team because the stands are different?

The issue is not just the actual participation--it's the quality of participation. That's why significant difference in locker rooms, transportation, etc. are also potential violations.

 

Further, can we also agree that a baseball field might have different seating requirements because one field is much larger than the other?   As the interviewed man in the video stated the stands were built so people could see the whole field, a problem the SB field likely does not have.

That would have been considered in the determination of substantial compliance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Matt, now your argument gets really dicey here.

 

 

jkumpire, on 04 Apr 2014 - 12:27 PM, said:snapback.png

C. The Federal Government has a right to order this torn down, based on an anonomous complaint. Washington DC has the power to adjudicate these decisions at the local level? Title IX was never envisioned to do this.

That didn't happen...read on.

 

Oh yes it did. From the Yahoo article: 

 

Now, the school must tear it all down. The U.S. Education Department's Office for Civil Rights opened an investigation following an anonymous complaint. Ultimately, officials demanded that the seating and scoreboard be torn down because the upgrades are superior to Plymouth's girls' softball facilities (pictured). The boys' seating is also not handicap accessible, which is a separate violation of government regulations.... Plymouth High School superintendent Michael Meissen said the seats and scoreboard will be preserved until the district decides how to remedy the situation. Meissen told WJBK-TV that the school wants to follow the government's regulations and be "fair to everyone," but it does not have the funds to upgrade the girls' softball bleachers. The school reportedly plans to install a new scoreboard on the softball field, though.

 

There are obvious Title IX implications to this story, as federally funded schools are required to provide equal opportunity for both boys' and girls' sports. Forty-two years after the law was passed, schools and colleges across the country are still struggling to comply with the rules in the face of shrinking budgets. Plymouth joins a long list of schools that may be in violation of Title IX, whether they realize it or not.

 

This is classic Federal Bureaucratic oversight, tell them to get into compliance or else. What are their alternatives? The school district has no cash to build for the SB team, and nobody who supports the SB team is working to get the money, or the school superintendent would tell it to everyone. We can also assume no businesses in town have been asked to help out either. 

 

So they only have one way to comply, spend money to tear down the baseball stands and take down the scoreboard, and store them in the hope one day something can be built for the SB team, and the Baseball team. Meanwhile the stored scoreboard, seats and building materials start to deteriorate or have to be refurbished before they can be replaced. If I was a betting man, I would bet at least one game check those baseball bleachers are never rebuilt and that scoreboard never gets put back up. In time the athletic department or the school board will sell the items. 

 

 

jkumpire, on 04 Apr 2014 - 12:27 PM, said:snapback.png

2. Your comments here do not seem to agree with the facts I see in the report. The Feds (according to you) did not demand the seating had to come down, but its order to 'equalize' between the two teams is a defacto order to do it. The school district says it does not have the $$ to comply, so the Feds are enforcing a certain behavior by demanding something that a group or organization cannot do. Several different governmental bodies use that kind of order to enforce their brand of orthodoxy all the time. Where is fairness in this?

The government does not tell institutions how to become compliant. There are three means by which an institution can become compliant and maintain compliance; only one has to be met. Thus, when an institution becomes non-compliant, there are no fewer than four remedies at its disposal. The institution decides how it is going to proceed, develops a plan for compliance, and an explanation as to why the remedy achieves compliance.

This is totally on the school.

 

No it isn't totally on the school. The government could easily grant a wavier so the stands could stay in place, they could help the school district with an ADA grant or make other money avaliable to help bring them into compliance. Further, read the article words again: Ultimately, officials demanded that the seating and scoreboard be torn down because the upgrades are superior to Plymouth's girls' softball facilities. Are you trying to tell us the school board or superintendent demanded that the school district tear the stands down?

 

Even better, they could go back to the original application of Title IX when the law was passed in 1979, when the measure of complaince was in several different ways, and equality of outcome was not the standard that had to be met in all cases, a ruling that was handed down in the Clinton Administration in 1998. I would be very interested in hearing what you believe the four four remedies are for compliance; I believe that all of them are way too expensive for the district to do, so they took the one that costs them the least amount of time, money, and possible litigation, teraring down the Baseball bleachers. 

 

It is also interesting to me that you are supporting the whole idea that only the Federal Government has the ability to determine what is complinace or not (i.e. what is right/moral/ethical or not), ignoring the facts on the ground as they are.

 

I'm telling you that the Yahoo article is not a credible source. It is factually incorrect. The boosters themselves even have said the school made the decision.

 

Not to mention, equality of outcome has never been a standard for Title IX. I don't know where you are getting that. If you had read what I had written, I spoke of the three means of compliance (which you seem to have ignored in the red above.) That has never changed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...